Why do people deny evolution?

he may not be "neanderthhalensis" but he is"Neanerthalens-ISH"

ha ha ha ha if that is your 'prove' it shows how ridiculous it all is.

Evolution is tautological. It is 'proven' by the fact that species survive and reproduce and those that don't survive and reproduce go extinct. Anything that survives is deemed relatively more fit to survive than whatever dies off because fitness is measured by survival.

How could you prove that some extinct species is more fit than one that still survives and reproduces? Sharks are supposedly very primitive, for example, but they continue to survive and reproduce. Evolution explains this by saying that they are simply so efficient at surviving, they don't need to change their DNA to adapt to changing conditions. Nevertheless, if sharks did continually mutate and some sub-species survived while others died off, evolution would say that the mutants were more fit and thus more 'evolved.'

Basically there is a way to rationalize whatever species survive in reference to whatever genetic changes they've undergone and the environmental conditions they have endured and reproduced within despite various extinction pressures, predators, etc.

Oh, right. there's no such thing as evolution. So you ARE a Neanderthal. Sorry. My mistake, I hadn't realized <snicker>

youve forgotten that species CHANGE THROUGH TIME. They dont merely survive or die. That is, of course, unless you deny that they change through time, then all you have to explain is where all these species came from.
BTW, the early arguments against evolution included one that claimed "Survival of the Fittest" was a tautology (actually it aint because of the way that Spenser actually said it).Youve gone right to the home plate and now state that evolution itself is a tautology. I think your understanding of both words needs some repair (I KNOW, IKNOW, AGAIN with the word salads) . I always thought that a tautology is a unneeded repetition of an idea, for example"to descend down the staircase" .

There is, indeed, as mentioned numerous times , no macro-evolution. It that so difficult to understand? And why always the ridicule if someone disagrees with your bullshit? can't you take that? It seems so.
Very immature.

ONLY YOU and a few other anti-science clowns have "mentioned that", Of course you always mention it without the benefit of having any supportive evidence of your claim. I think youve been asked for evidence for several of your assertions but never deliver. You mrely turn th comment around and demand evidence from science,(and when we give you plenty, you ignore, deny, and generally verbalize like a gibbon).

You do realize that youre just a witless phony who trolls by trying to sound a few species higher in intelligence than you are.

There is, as mentioned numerous times, macro-evolution. It is the cumulative effect of several/many microevolutions.

That is only the hypothesis, so far so good.
Now about the lack of evidence for that hypothesis........

Maybe you can show some, but I sincerely doubt it.

And, again, it is even mathematical (statistics) impossible.
Of course it is, the lack of evidence also show it to be untrue.

Heres one for you. You will, of course deny it so I shant lose any sleep worrying about your missing ducation

Pantroglodytes
Ahelanthropus tchadensis
Orrorin tugenensis
Paranthropus aethiopithecus
Paranthropus robustus
Paranthropus boisei
ARdipithecus ramidus
Ardipithecus garhi
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus anamensis
Austrlopithecus bahrelghazali Kenyanthropus platyops
Homo Habilis
Homo naledis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo erectus
Homo antecessor
Homo floresiensis
Homo ergaster
Homo heidelbergensis
Homos neanderthalensis
Homo sapiens sapiens, idaltu
Home sapiens sapiens, modern


AS far as "mathematically impossible", give an example of your numbers ,Ill try to tell you here you screwed up.

I once asked, on a different thread about dogs. No creationist ever responded to the thread.

The question was, if only two of each species made it onto the ark, why are there so many breeds of dog? And why do they all look so different.

The obvious implication is that the Bible itself is either supportive of evolution, or Noah's Ark is wrong. After all, there were only two dogs there, and now:
- There's St Bernards and Min Foxy's;
- Dasch hounds, and English Bulldogs
- Pugs , and Poodles
- Mastifs and Terriers
- Labradors and Greyhounds
- artic dogs vs equatorial dogs
- etc. So not just the size varies, but the body shape, the amount of muscle, the speed, the appetite (anyone who owns a labrador will understand that last), the amount of hair their body grows, and even their instinct (to herd, to point, to retrieve, loyalty to territory vs roaming, etc)

Breeds of course, are different to species. And since Noah's Ark:
- there are hundreds of breeds
- new breeds cropping up, each with their own unique look
- with enough breeding, they eventually become purebred (there are implications for evolution in this)

Of course, asking why Australian animals are so unique is also problematic to the Noah's Ark story.

Same for the 8.7 million species of animal in the world.

Problem is a dog, stays a dog, stays a dog.

Why don't we see nowadays turning dogs into pigs, so to speak?

These kind of thing NEVER happens. NEVER.

Ohh I know it goes verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy sloooowllly

Sure it does.

You must be a moron to believe that crap!

I gave you species nd genera names of a group of apes that are related in time. THey are but one group of genera that demonstrate MACROEVOLUTION. Now your ducking that evidence with your typically stupid comment that dogs dont become pigs. Yet andrewsarchus AND Uintatherium shared a common ancestor that broke into these two examples of pigs and doggs all within the Paleogene . Dogs didnt become pigs but both pigs and dogs shared a common ancestor.
Your ability to even mount a reasonably thought- out denial is totally based on bunkum. So far youve posed nothing profound.

It seems, in your stupidity, you call everything MACRO evolution.

Really, mate, there is NONE even mathematical impossible.

so, go home and start to think for yourself.

Whats your math evidence I believe I can help you understand where your all fucked up.

I dont call everything Macroevolution, Ill only tell you what IS macroevolution since you dont seem to understand anything beyond your conspiracy laden mind.

Gnight,Ill give you some time to try to work on compiling a decent denial with some evidence of your own.

Whenever anyone asks questions like that the simple answer is 'God did it.' God made dogs super adaptive, and Oz beasts weird so there would be a reason to visit Oz.

not rally. Hybridization of dogs is exactly the methods followed by Darwin (with his pigeons that he cross bred and developed new strains). He , with this experimentation, began to uncover the route and sustainability of a trait(Yet, without any knowledge of genetics, he guessed wrongly that "traits" would be diluted over several generations-This was his biggest blunder that led to others backing him up with the use of genetics). Another minor problem is that Darwin never conceived of a "Critical mass" population being necessary for sustaining a trait and , hence, supporting evolution.


Hybridization clearly showed (to those who listen) that traits need no gods to work out the transmutation process.

'God did it' is so much simpler and easier to grasp by people who have problems with words like hybridisation.

Unfortunately it's the only answer a lot of them need or want.

well of course, if they wish to walk the "dark side of knowledge", who am I to say anything other than something insulting about wasted intellect.

Glad that we agree then, that as a comparison between the breeds, evolution can be involved in dogs mutating, some into:
- long bodied animals, and some into short bodied
- very large animals, and some into very small
- very hairy animals, and some into almost hairless
- very fast animals, and some into much slower
- etc

Many creationists are very uncomfortable with the implications of such drastic mutations (drastic in terms of comparative size, speed, muscle, etc).

I've still not seen any creationist provide a explanation for the very unique animals in Australia - ie. one that meets the beliefs contained in the bible.

My favourite is an admission that the story of creation is just that - a story, and that there is nothing wrong with evolution being guided by God's hand. At least that one makes sense, if you wish to believe in a God.

But that would bring us back to the topic of the thread - Why do people deny evolution?